Planned but ever published? A retrospective analysis of clinical prediction model studies registered on clinicaltrials.gov since 2000

Journal article

Objectives: To describe the characteristics and publication outcomes of clinical prediction model studies registered on clinicaltrials.gov since 2000.

Study Design and Setting: Observational studies registered on clinicaltrials.gov between January 1, 2000, and March 2, 2022, describing the development of a new clinical prediction model or the validation of an existing model for predicting individual-level prognostic or diagnostic risk were analyzed. Eligible clinicaltrials.gov records were classified by modeling study type (development, validation) and the model outcome being predicted (prognostic, diagnostic). Recorded characteristics included study status, sample size information, Medical Subject Headings, and plans to share individual participant data. Publication outcomes were analyzed by linking National Clinical Trial numbers for eligible records with PubMed abstracts.

Results: Nine hundred twenty-eight records were analyzed from a possible 89,896 observational study records. Publications searches found 170 matching peer-reviewed publications for 137 clinicaltrials.gov records. The estimated proportion of records with 1 or more matching publications after accounting for time since study start was 2.8% at 2 years (95% CI: 1.7%, 3.9%), 12.3% at 5 years (9.8% to 14.9%) and 27% at 10 years (23% to 33%). Stratifying records by study start year indicated that publication proportions improved over time. Records tended to prioritize the development of new prediction models over the validation of existing models (76%; 704/928 vs. 24%; 182/928). At the time of download, 27% of records were marked as complete, 35% were still recruiting, and 14.7% had unknown status. Only 7.4% of records stated plans to share individual participant data.

Conclusion: Published clinical prediction model studies are only a fraction of overall research efforts, with many studies planned but not completed or published. Improving the uptake of study preregistration and follow-up will increase the visibility of planned research. Introducing additional registry features and guidance may improve the identification of clinical prediction model studies posted to clinical registries.

Authors: White, N; Parsons, R; Borg, D; Collins, G; Barnett, A

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Elsevier
• Journal: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
• Volume: 173
• Article number: 111433
• Place of publication: United States
• Publication date: 2024-06-17
• Acceptance date: 2024-06-12
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111433
• EISSN: 1878-5921
• ISSN: 0895-4356
• Pmid: 38897482
• Language: English
• Keywords: publishing; retrospective studies; clinical trials as topic; registries; observational studies as topic; models; statistical